ROMI's Website
 
You are at the
 
INTRODUCTION
to the
VACCINATION
CONTROVERSY
 
page.  To return to the main/index page you may either use your "back" browser or click here: http://rimadyldeath.com/index.html.  The music selection for this page is "The Great Pretender(s)".

This is an introduction page for vaccinations if you are questioning whether or not to vaccinate your pet(s) and/or to what degree, and is not intended as "advice" only to provide information for you to make your own decision(s) which you are ultimately responsible for.
 
It's my opinion for my own self, and not as any sort of advice, that it's against my entire belief system to seek help/assistance or advice/opinions from someone who has consistently failed to tell the truth or consistently withhold information from me: it simply flies in the face of reason.  "Burn me once, shame on you - burn me a second time . . . well that's pretty DUMB on my part."


A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
Thomas Paine
(Introduction to Common Sense 1776)
 
go to: http://www.snips.8m.com/pages/vaccinations.htm for the full site; this is just some of the information provided there.
 

The veterinary community has known for many years that there is no proven benefit to annual revaccination - in fact, they have known that there may be serious health problems actually caused by this practice - however they have continued to supress this information, instead convincing us that we were not good guardians if we did not comply with their recommendations. We know now that we have been misled, and our animal companions have paid the price. With this in mind, this page will add information on an ongoing basis so that you may be able to educate yourself regarding the vaccination issue. This page currently includes a wide array of information, including articles by respected alternative veterinarians, new vaccine protocols finally being introduced by vet schools, articles in the mainstream press, and a letter to the Texas Attorney General from a Texas veterinarian willing to step forward and call these acts the practice of fraud.

#

The following quote, from Ron Schultz, Ph.D., and Tom Phillips, DVM, appeared in Kirk's Current Veterinary Therapy XI in 1992 (This is a purely conventional textbook, and Drs. Schultz and Phillips are respected veterinary immunologists in the academic community):

A practice that was started many years ago and that lacks scientific validity or verification is annual revaccinations. Almost without exception there is no immunologic requirement for annual revaccination. Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that remains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins requires boosters (e.g. tetanus toxin booster, in humans, is recommended once every 7-10 years), and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs and cats. Furthermore, revaccination with most viral vaccines fails to stimulate an anamnestic (secondary) response as a result of interference by existing antibody (similar to maternal antibody interference). The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e., certain states require annual revaccination for rabies).

#

From the AVMA Principles of Vaccination
There is evidence that some vaccines provide immunity beyond one year. Revaccination of patients with sufficient immunity does not add measurably to their disease resistance, and may increase their risk of adverse post-vaccination events. Vaccination is a potent medical procedure with both benefits and associated hazards.

It is not currently possible to determine the immune status of a patient relative to all the infectious diseases of concern without conducting a challenge test. Serology does not predict a patient's immune status for most diseases. For those diseases where serology has predictive value of a patient's immune status, the variation within and between laboratories renders the procedure generally unreliable.

Adverse events may be associated with the antigen, adjuvant, carrier, preservative, or a combination thereof. Possible adverse events include failure to immunize, anaphylaxis, immunosuppression, autoimmune disorders, transient infections, and/or long-term infected carrier states. In addition, a causal association in cats between injection sites and the subsequent development of a malignant tumor is the subject of ongoing research. The role of genetic predisposition to adverse events needs further exploration and definition.

Vaccine program goals include providing optimal immunity against clinically relevant diseases the patient is at-risk to contract, while minimizing the potential for adverse events.

...Biological agents are regulated by the USDA, not the Food and Drug Administration, and thus are not subject to those regulations that address extra label use. Veterinarians can legally use vaccines in a discretionary manner.
USDA licensing at the full approval level provides a baseline standard for efficacy, safety, purity, and potency, but the clinical need (relevancy) or usefulness (applicability) of a product are not assured by the licensing process. The USDA must approve labels for biological products. However, current labels frequently contain revaccination interval recommendations based on historical precedence and regulation rather than scientific data, may fail to adequately inform practitioners about optimal use of the product, and the testing methods may be inadequate to identify rare but relevant safety concerns. [2001]

#

Weighing the Risks and Benefits of Vaccination
LT Glickman
D
epartment of Veterinary Pathobiology
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

The following summarizes this author's current thoughts regarding veterinary vaccines and their safety:

1. Every licensed animal vaccine is probably
effective, but also produces some adverse effects.

2. Prelicensing studies of vaccines are not specifically designed to detect adverse vaccine reactions.

3. An improved system of national postmarketing surveillance is required to identify most adverse vaccine reactions that occur at low and moderate frequency.

4. Even a good postmarketing surveillance system is unlikely, however, to detect delayed adverse vaccine reactions, and the longer the
delay the less likely they will be associated with vaccination.

5. Analytic epidemiologic (field) studies are the best way to link vaccination with delayed adverse reactions, but these are often hindered by incomplete vaccination histories in medical records in veterinary practice and by a lack
of veterinarians in industry trained in epidemiologic methods.

6. Each licensed veterinary vaccine should be subjected to a quantitative risk assessment, and these should be updated on a regular basis as new information becomes available.

7. Risk assessment should be used to identify gaps in information regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, and appropriate
epidemiologic studies conducted to fill these gaps that contribute to the uncertainty in risk estimates.

8. Risk assessment is an analytical process
that is firmly based on scientific considerations, but it also requires judgments to be made when the available information is incomplete. These judgments inevitably draw on both scientific and policy considerations.

9. Representatives from industry, government, veterinary medicine, and the animal-owning public should be involved in risk management, that is, deciding between policy options.

The controversy regarding vaccine risks is intensifying to the point that some animal owners have stopped vaccinating their animals. They offer as justification the belief that current vaccines are "just too dangerous." Some owners report that since they completely  stopped vaccinating their animals, they have been healthy. What they fail to realize is that a high percentage of animal owners are responsible and do vaccinate their animals, thus providing "herd immunity" protection to the unvaccinated animals whom they contact.

[snips comment: There is an even stronger possibility that lasting immunity from initial vaccination, and not "herd immunity" is why the dogs who do not receive annual revaccination stay healthy. Consider that animals who have had the most vaccinations are often those who are most strongly affected when disease states are introduced into a population.]

The solution to the vaccine controversy is not to abandon vaccination as an effective means of disease prevention and control, but rather to encourage vaccine research to answer
important questions regarding safety and to identify the biological basis for adverse reactions.

Key questions to be answered include these: What components of vaccines are responsible for adverse reactions?

What is the genetic basis for susceptibility to adverse health effects in animals?

How can susceptible individuals be identified?

Do multivalent vaccines cause a higher rate of adverse reactions than monovalent vaccines?

Is administration of multiple doses of monovalent vaccines really any safer than administering a single multivalent vaccine?

These and other vaccine-related questions deserve our attention as veterinarians so we can fulfill our veterinary oath to relieve animal suffering and "above all else, do no harm."



May my beloved partner ROMI rest in peace  - no matter wherever her bits and pieces/frozen carcass may be held hostage.

                            

                  [what's in YOUR "urn" ?]

                

This Website Built and Hosted for Free at
Bravenet.com